Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 257 (UTT)

Vir Krishan Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-29

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is same, these two writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By means of present writ petitions, petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2017 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in restoration application no.96 of 2005-06 and restoration application no.95 of 2005-06 Madhur Sharma and others vs. State of Uttaranchal. 3. Facts leading to filing of present writ petitions are that the petitioner and proforma respondents filed separate applications for mutation of their names in revenue record on the basis of Will dated 02.09.1995 executed by Smt. Vidyawati in favour of petitioner and proforma respondents. Vide judgment and order dated 30.11.1998, both the applications were allowed and the names of petitioner as well as proforma respondents were recorded in revenue record. Against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1998, respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 filed two appeals under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, before the court of record officer/Collector, Dehradun. Although the appeals were filed by the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 after a lapse of almost 7 years but the appeals were not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Vide order dated 05.04.2006, learned Collector, Dehradun registered the appeals and issued notices to the opposite parties. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner herein filed two separate revisions numbered as Revision No.89 of 2005-06 and Revision No.90 of 2005-06 before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner. Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner, vide order dated 07.07.2006, allowed both the revisions on the ground that the appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation, but the court has entertained the appeal without condoning the delay, and remitted the matter back to the learned Collector to first hear the parties on the question of condonation of delay and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 filed two separate/recall applications for recalling the order dated 07.07.2006 whereupon the Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner has stayed the operation and effect of order dated 07.07.2006 under recall. In the meantime, court of Chief Revenue Commissioner and Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner were abolished in State of Uttarakhand and Board of Revenue was constituted and as such the case was transferred to the court of Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Chief Revenue Commissioner has stayed the operation and effect of order dated 07.07.2006 under recall. In the meantime, court of Chief Revenue Commissioner and Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner were abolished in State of Uttarakhand and Board of Revenue was constituted and as such the case was transferred to the court of Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Thereafter, Vide order dated 30.4.2015, Board of Revenue appointed District Government Counsel (Revenue) as Court Commissioner to submit a report in regard to mutation taken place till 2015 qua the land in question. Petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred two separate writ petitions before this Court. After hearing the parties, this Court allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter back to the Board of Revenue to decide the restoration applications expeditiously. Subsequently, the matter was heard and vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2017, learned Board of Revenue allowed the restoration applications filed by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the restoration applications were filed by the respondents after the lapse of period of limitation, thus, the impugned orders, allowing the restoration applications and restoring the civil revisions, are illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that the restoration applications have been allowed without condoning the delay. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for private respondents would submit that the revisions filed by the petitioners were allowed by the revisional court at the admission stage, without issuing notices to the respondents and it is in fact for the first time on 25.02.2006 when the respondents get knowledge about the orders dated 30.11.1998. He would thus contend that there is no question of any delay of alleged 7 years and 5 months inasmuch as where the summons or notices are not duly served, the period of limitation will start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 7. Perusal of impugned orders dated 6.1.2017 would reveal that the learned Board of Revenue, while allowing the restoration applications, has recorded a finding that the restoration application has been filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 7. Perusal of impugned orders dated 6.1.2017 would reveal that the learned Board of Revenue, while allowing the restoration applications, has recorded a finding that the restoration application has been filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge. I do not find any force in the contention so raised by the counsel for the petitioner that without condoning the delay, restoration applications have been allowed, as it has been observed by the Board of Revenue that the restoration applications are not time-barred keeping in view the date of knowledge. Moreover, it is the admitted case of the parties that the revisions filed by the petitioners have been allowed by the Board of Revenue at the admission stage without issuing notices to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by passing of the orders impugned. In my considered view, revisions have been decided in violation of basic principle of natural justice “Audi Alteram Partem” which means that no one should be condemned unheard. Since the respondents were not heard at the time of deciding the revisions before the Board of Revenue, I do not find any illegality committed by Board of Revenue in allowing the restoration applications. Writ petitions are devoid of merit. Same are accordingly dismissed. Board of Revenue shall make an endeavour to decide the revisions expeditiously. It is made clear that unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided in the matter. 8. No order as to costs.